ForumsWEPRGun control in the US

1127 152946
theEPICgameKING
offline
theEPICgameKING
906 posts
Blacksmith

Discuss. General Tavern rules apply. (No mudslinging, be respectful, etc.)
I'll open with the statement that people should not have guns. No one at all, except the armed forces, and even then, keep the guns on the bases. Cops should carry riot shields and armor instead of guns. If they need crowd control, use Water Cannons.
Supporting evidence: the following skit:
What's your reason?
Setting: A gun shop, modern day.
A Customer walks into the gun shop and asks the Shopkeeper, "Hi, i'd like to buy a gun please."
The Shopkeeper pulls out an application form and asks the customer "Alright, what's your reason for wanting to buy a gun?"
The Customer says "I need one for personal protection."
The Shopkeeper nods. "I have just the thing for you, I guarantee you cannot get any more personal protection than this baby right here. What i'm about to show you offers so much protection, it can stop a shotgun shell."
The customer, very interested, stares at a full-size Riot Shield, the kind the police use. He scoffs. "That's not what I want, I want a gun!"
The Shopkeeper shrugs. "Are you sure? This fine piece of equipment will protect you more than a gun ever will! It's very strong, reinforced titanium and kevlar..." by now, the angry Customer has left.
Later, another Customer enters. "Hi, I need a gun."
Again, the Shopkeeper clicks his pen and pulls out an application form. "For what reason?" he asks.
The Customer hesitates, than says "Hunting."
The shopkeeper smiles. "Of course! I love to hunt. Hunting is a wonderful sport. I guarantee that this item will give you the maximum amount of satisfaction you can ever get from hunting! Here, this is the sport at its peak." And he pulls out a Crossbow, complete with crosshairs for better accuracy.
The customer shakes his head. "No, I want a gun." he states.
The shopkeeper reluctantly puts away the Crossbow. "Are you sure? With a gun, it's so...boring, just pulling a trigger. And it's unfair to the animal, with this you give the deer a chance and have to chase it for up to an hour, just like the Native Americans did back in the day! Unless of course..." He fails to finish his sentence, as the pissed off customer has left in a huff.
Later, a third customer walks in. "Hi, I'd like to buy a gun." he says.
The shopkeeper holds his pen at the ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks.
The customer glares. "I dont need a reason, read the god **** second amendment "THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS." It's in the constitution you idiot!
The shopkeeper merely smiles. "Of course, I have the perfect thing for you. This gun is covered under Second Amendment laws, guaranteed!" And he holds up a 200-year-old, civil-war-era musket, complete with rusty bayonet.
The customer shrieks. "No, man! I want a Glock, a shotgun, something better than that civil war crap!"
The shopkeeper merely smiles. "I'm sorry sir, please come back when they update the second amendment to include those types of guns. Here, i'll even give you a discount..." the shopkeeper holds out a discount to the enraged customer, who tears it in half and leaves.
Fourthly, another Customer walks in. "I really need a gun, now." He says.
The Shopkeeper holds his pen and application form ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks.
Instead of stating his reason this time, the Customer snatches the application form and looks at it. There, in the spot titled "Reasons" is a circle for "other".
"Other! That's my reason!" the Customer declares triumphantly.
The shopkeeper shrugs. "Very good answer sir." he says, while pressing a button under the counter. Two cops arrive at the shop in less than a minute and cuff the Customer.
"Hey! What the *PROFANITY* ARE YOU *PROFANITY* GUYS DOING? I'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG!" He yells, almost breaking the glass of the windows.
"Actually, you have." The Shopkeeper begins. "the "other" reason, by exclusion of the other reason, can only include wanting to kill or rob someone. Therefore, you were thinking about commiting a crime when you selected "Other" as your reason. Caught you red-handed, trying to buy the tools necessary to commiting a crime. You confessed to it when you selected "Other"! Take him downtown, please." The cops nod and take the Customer away. The last thing he hears from the Shopkeeper is "Oh, and I knew it was you all those times!"

Moral of the story: You do NOT need a gun for a particular activity. In any given activity (And I challenge you to give me a valid, legal activity for which you would need to personally own a gun), there are many other options. Why buy a gun for personal protection when a Riot Shield blocks shotgun shells? Why buy a gun for hunting when the point of hunting (and every other sport) is satisfaction, and since you get more satisfaction with more challenge, and since a crossbow offers more challenge than a gun, you'll get more satisfaction with the crossbow. Why buy a gun based on the Second Amendment when the Colonial-age guns were either giant cannons or black-powder, muzzle-loading Muskets? Did the Founding Fathers have AR-15's, and SPAZ-12 shotguns,And AK 47s, not to mention all the accessories like laser scopes and hollow-point bullets? I dont think so!

The only way you can disprove my argument is to give me a valid, LEGAL activity which requires you to personally own a gun. This excludes Skeet-shooting, because the facility can and should/will provide the gun. Until anyone can do that, YOU DONT NEED A GUN, NO ONE NEEDS GUNS! They're WAY too dangerous and make it too easy to kill someone! Why have something you dont need?

  • 1,127 Replies
AatosLiukkonen
offline
AatosLiukkonen
67 posts
Peasant

what happened in the lives of those people to get those ideas? ugh..


Freedom happened.

And, I thought that all automatics were illegal.


Automatic weapons manufactured before 1986 are legal with a class 3 NFA stamp and enough money to buy a new Corvette.
nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,604 posts
Regent

So I'm guilty of what my children do? I'm guilty because of the sins of my father and his father before him? That's completely ridiculous.


You're completely missing the point. The point is that background checks are insufficient. The second point is that even if we efficiently prevent someone from buying guns on grounds of poor mental health, if their family members can procure the weapons, any kind of law or check is useless.

Why can't you? Well, for one it's not particularly entertaining, and secondly it's inherently dangerous. You don't need to pull the trigger for you or your family to fall over dead.


The same logic applies to guns. I like nukes. I like the way its dangerous and exudes power, so why should I not have one? You're only giving me a very flippant reaon not to own one. It's not entertaining? How dare you! You're not one to determine my interests. And whilst we're at it, why can't I have a vial of anthrax? It's my want, who cares about others if I'm a trained micro biologist and am responsible?

Petty and selfish? If you're so selfless and irresponsible, don't buy a gun. I have a gun, my family has many more. Many of my friends have yet more guns. I don't recall any instances where they've murdered a dozen people, but I do recall instances where they've stuck a gun in someone's face who was trying to harm them or their property.


There are no statistics to prove so. The magic 2.5 million pulled up all over the net was done by a single 1993 survey that called up 5000 particpipants, which is extrapolated to the whole country. Beside the poor methodoloy, other studies have failed to replicate and give widely different numbers to as low as 50,000.

Yes, it is selfish of you to want an assault rifle for no reason other than wants.

Such as?


Strengthening the force, nationwide gun control to prevent criminals from buying from laxer states, mental healthcare, prevention of straw purchases, stamping out on illegal sources of guns and the like.

I'd say getting checked by both the ATF and FBI, and cleared by agents within said organizations is good enough. The gun goes on the record and is subject to any seizure by police as any other property is. No matter how thick the red tape is, nobody is going to suspect a 21 year old medical student is going to mow down a movie theater. If the person is clean, there's literally nothing you can do to prevent them from buying a gun.


There will always be fish that slip out of the net, but not mending the bigger holes to prevent all fish from escaping is asinine.

Over my dead body. Police aren't stepping into my house with a warrant signed by a judge and a **** good reason for it. That would violate several constitutional amendments.


Then good luck with the shooting levels. Assault rifle owners are already required to be searched occasionally by law to check up every so often either way.

How do you prove responsibility? Well, they haven't shot anyone, held up convenience stores, mugged people, fired an AK through their neighbor's house, and for all we can tell, they're sane. Any of these things make it illegal for somebody to buy a gun, and gun dealers that sell them can look at decades behind bars themselves.


Strict, no nonsense background checks. We may claim that we have them already, but we do not. The number of guns sold illegally each year through legal buyers is astonishing. Cho was evaluated at a health center after his classmates complained about him, yet the next day, simply because a special justice approved outpatient treatment for Mr. Cho, not because he was declared mentally fit, which may explain why no red flags were raised by the stateâs background check system when he bought the weapons this year. This is plain irresponsibility and weakness in enforcement of checks.

People can buy guns easy if they're law abiding, sane individuals. That's how law abiding citizens do things, lawfully. How is making gun laws stricter going to help? All those guns, all those places. Outright banning them won't work, ever, there's too many guns. Restricting the sale of guns won't help, as all the people you'd be restricting the guns to are already restricted. The laws cannot get any tighter without pointlessly butting into people's business.


I only care about how non-law abiding individuals are getting their guns. Tougher background checks are needed, and examples have been provided to show you where.


Ignoring the stupidly tight gun laws in DC and it's massive murder rate, that's illegal and a federal crime. Federal prison. Normal people don't do that or need to do that. Making it more illegal isn't going to help, and restricting isn't going to take the guns off the street. Those criminals are just going to spend a few extra hours going through an illicit dealer, or just stealing themselves a gun.


In 2009, just ten states supplied nearly half - 49% â" of the guns that crossed state lines before being recovered in crimes. Together, these states accounted for nearly 21,000 interstate crime guns recovered in 2009. When controlling for population, Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alaska, Alabama, South Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, and Georgia
export crime guns at the highest rates. These states export crime guns at more than seven times the rate of the ten states with the lowest crime gun export rates.

The District of Columbia and 16 states have an average export rate of 7.5 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants. In comparison, the 34 states that do not require background checks for all handgun sales at gun shows have an average export rate of 19.8 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, a rate more than two and a half times greater than the rate of states that do.

Even if it's illegal, it's certainly not enforced, which is an area that gun control needs to step in to. No more cross border purchase of guns if your state declares you mentally unfit.

As I like to point out in many arguments, America isn't Europe. America isn't China. America isn't Russia. We have always had guns, we always will. In every single ban on weapons or restriction, the crime rate almost never drops. Look at Detroit, Chicago, DC, New York City, Los Angeles, and compare to places like Atlanta, Memphis, or Houston. The gun laws are worlds different, yet crime is the same as anywhere. It's because criminals don't use legal weapons, or they wouldn't be criminals. Yes, there are a few that do, but they're the exception, not the rule. A 5% drop in crime is not worth pissing millions off and removing their ability to defend themselves or engage in sport as they please.


Then why is America trying to spread democracy? Why is America trying to have it's way all round the world? These nations are not America, so why is America doing so? If China is China, then why are Americans trying to force them to pay higher wages, or to spread democracy there?

What makes America stand out? Gun culture? Well, culture is never static, it is dynamic.

A 5% drop in crime is very much worth ''issing those millions off'. Gun crime costs 100 billion a year [ Phillip J. Cook ]. Gun crime kills 12,000 people and injures 52000 others each year. A 5% drop is well worth your wants, because when it comes to a crunch, saving a life or satisfying your want which you do not require to continue living, the life is far more important.

Funny, gun laws a decade ago were stricter. Assault weapons bans, the Brady Bill, and whatnot. Crime stays the same, and isn't influenced by newer, crazier guns. It's influenced by newer, crazier ways to make money.


Because of weak mental checks, weak intra border checks. You're only going to be as strong as the weakest link.

Crime is always a problem. Banning or restricting guns isn't the solution.


It is, and half the world has already moved on.

And, I thought that all automatics were illegal.


No. The Fed Assault Ban only bans certain kinds of semi autos.
nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,604 posts
Regent

Freedom happened.


The collective freedom to own guns so freely has resulted in the freedom of having lives by hundreds of thousands of people. Freedoms are not absolutes, they will always clash, and the freedom to life almost always trumps.
wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,449 posts
Blacksmith

As I like to point out in many arguments, America isn't Europe. America isn't China. America isn't Russia. We have always had guns, we always will. In every single ban on weapons or restriction, the crime rate almost never drops


I find this argument to be ridiculously flimsy. America was built on certain ideals, yet, so was every other country. America is not the first country provide laws in the maintaining of a citizen militia, however it is perhaps the first and only country to so poorly abuse that law. The 2nd Amendment was instituted as a policy to provide a greater armed force due to the threat the British posed to American independence. When it was written America was under external threat. However, because this law has been abused, and sickeningly idolized, America faces an internal problem. And yes, it is very much a problem. Simply leaving things as they are will not make the problem go away. Nations must be willing to adapt, to change. Something, at least arguable from a historical perspective, America has done very little of since the Cold War.
09philj
offline
09philj
2,876 posts
Scribe

As you may have seen, the NRA think the answer to gun crime is for more people to have guns. 0_0

loco5
offline
loco5
16,292 posts
Shepherd

As you may have seen, the NRA think the answer to gun crime is for more people to have guns. 0_0


would you want to rob a store where you know the clerk has a shotgun under the table and a pistol at his hip?
HahiHa
online
HahiHa
7,109 posts
Grand Duke

would you want to rob a store where you know the clerk has a shotgun under the table and a pistol at his hip?

I can understand that argument.. if you're stupid enough to rob during opening times. Besides, more private persons keeping guns at home won't help reduce shoplifts and such thefts.
Mars_1
offline
Mars_1
5 posts
Peasant

Gun Control in the U.S. is a touchy topic.

[quote]A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Under our current system of government we have no need for a rag-tag group of men to protect our citizens in the form of a militia. However, we do have something close to a militia, the national guard. As a result we don't need weapons to protect ourselves from the government, which is why this Amendment was enacted. However, Americans like to feel empowered by having their firearms. I think most government officials know they cannot completely band firearms, they are an American pastime. I believe a more viable solution would be better screening and ammunition that cannot be bought in large quantities.

Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
Blacksmith

The 2nd Amendment was instituted as a policy to provide a greater armed force due to the threat the British posed to American independence. When it was written America was under external threat. However, because this law has been abused, and sickeningly idolized, America faces an internal problem. And yes, it is very much a problem. Simply leaving things as they are will not make the problem go away. Nations must be willing to adapt, to change. Something, at least arguable from a historical perspective, America has done very little of since the Cold War.


The 2nd amendment was also created to give citizens the right to use arms in order to hunt and for sport. Sure, we aren't being threatened by British military in our country anymore, but people still use firearms for hunting and sport. Ted Nugent hunts all of his meat - I'm pretty sure he'd die if the 2nd amendment was repealed.

Of course, the argument of "Just go to the supermarket" will come of that. Why should we if we don't want to?

After that, a fitting place to look at is the ideas of two of America's indirect founding fathers: Locke and Rousseau. Their ideas were sewn into the Constitution more so than probably any other person credited with writing it.

Locke believed in the individual's freedom. He strongly supported acts that would overthrow a government if the majority of a population saw that government as being corrupt. He also believed that each person should NEVER sacrifice under any circumstances, and absolutely hated the ideas of fascism and socialism. He thought that if a person was going to suffer, it was their problem.

Rousseau believed that it was necessary for a population to give up freedoms in order to receive protection, which does make sense, doesn't it? You give up this, then you can get this. Completely contradictory of Locke.

Just some food for thought.
TheMostManlyMan
offline
TheMostManlyMan
5,487 posts
Herald

As stated before, who would rob a gun store? Who is that much of an idiot? Nobody with any sense of self-preservation. If there were more (completely stable) gun owners then people would be more and more worried about running into one whilst committing a crime.

If you were at a robbery where the criminal has a gun, would you be more likely to be thinking:
A:I sure wish there was more gun-control (because we all now how criminals follow laws)
B: I wish I/someone else had a gun

Now I'm going to bring something up that has been said by Stig to be NA; Mexico. The gun laws there are quite strict and look at them, he drug dealers are wearing the nice suits while the police are wearing ski masks. It has been said that Mexico doesn't apply because they are practically at war with themselves, no question about that. However it could have been prevented if more people had the guns to stop this from getting as far as it has.

HahiHa
online
HahiHa
7,109 posts
Grand Duke

As stated before, who would rob a gun store? Who is that much of an idiot? Nobody with any sense of self-preservation. If there were more (completely stable) gun owners then people would be more and more worried about running into one whilst committing a crime.

Firstly, I ask it again, what good would it do that more private persons had guns at home, if they get robbed in a store? Because as far as I know not all states allow concealed guns, certainly not in big cities.

Then, if shop owners have guns, great, you'll have less cretins shoplifting in daytime, and more regular robberies at times when such things are usually done.

Lastly, knowing that people are regularly aggressed/brutalized for as much as an insult or less, I would not feel comfortable with everyone walking about with concealed guns, security or not. What do I care if my murderer is shot by other people if I'm dead?

Now I'm going to bring something up that has been said by Stig to be NA; Mexico.

Seriously? Mexico has the cartels, organized crime as nowhere else. If you gave everyone guns, those would eventually all end up in the hands of the cartels, causing several casualities in the process. No, guns is just temporary symptomatic treatment; if you want to do something about it, you gotta find something else.
nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,604 posts
Regent

Locke believed in the individual's freedom. He strongly supported acts that would overthrow a government if the majority of a population saw that government as being corrupt. He also believed that each person should NEVER sacrifice under any circumstances, and absolutely hated the ideas of fascism and socialism. He thought that if a person was going to suffer, it was their problem.


Locke only did so because his ideas stemmed deeply from the Bible, his philosophy was based on Christian dogma.

If you were at a robbery where the criminal has a gun, would you be more likely to be thinking:
A:I sure wish there was more gun-control (because we all now how criminals follow laws)
B: I wish I/someone else had a gun


A. How many times must we explain that gun control only works in tandem with other policies?

Now I'm going to bring something up that has been said by Stig to be NA; Mexico. The gun laws there are quite strict and look at them, he drug dealers are wearing the nice suits while the police are wearing ski masks. It has been said that Mexico doesn't apply because they are practically at war with themselves, no question about that. However it could have been prevented if more people had the guns to stop this from getting as far as it has.


Many of the guns they get, come from lax US borders along their states.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
Bard

Sure, we aren't being threatened by British military in our country anymore, but people still use firearms for hunting and sport.


hunting and sport shooting is not done by automatic guns.

guns for these purposes can be legalized through control and bureaucracy.
(and not a simple background check as is done now for any gun)

Locke and Rousseau.

do not live in 2012/3

I sure wish there was more gun-control (because we all now how criminals follow laws)

easyer to track illegal gun owners. allowing the cops to find criminals befor they can do whatever they wanna do.

B: I wish I/someone else had a gun

so this simple robbery can turn into a bloodbath.

Now I'm going to bring something up that has been said by Stig to be NA; Mexico. The gun laws there are quite strict and look at them,

how many times do i have to say that mexico is not a good comparison due to the civil war thats go's on in mexico.
if you want to compare whit mexico then plz. start a civil war in the usa 1st.

However it could have been prevented if more people had the guns to stop this from getting as far as it has.

omg... are you for real? or just trolling?
you know what would prevent it.. if the usa teens would stop using the drugs from mexico.
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
Blacksmith

guns for these purposes can be legalized through control and bureaucracy.
(and not a simple background check as is done now for any gun)


Which is the part of the point I was trying to make. Guns for these uses shouldn't be allowed, and it's ridiculous to think so.

do not live in 2012/3


Not what I was talking about. I was talking about where the Constitution and Bill of Rights are derived from. It's relevant because of the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
Blacksmith

Missed something.

Locke only did so because his ideas stemmed deeply from the Bible, his philosophy was based on Christian dogma.


What does that change if the ideas still influenced the way the USA works? Are you saying they're bunk because they're influenced by the Bible?

I don't think you're saying that because the Bible's ideals are found in the Constitution, the Constitution needs to be changed. That seems a bit outlandish.
Showing 166-180 of 1127